Standing Committee B

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]

Michael Meacher: I wish to clarify a point that was raised in Committee on Tuesday by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). There was discussion about clause 13(3), which provides for regulations enabling the monitoring authority or persons authorised by it to carry out certain inspection functions in relation to landfill operators. I mistakenly suggested that provision might be limited to a specific organisational pattern in Northern Ireland. That is not the case. The clause does not limit those who can act as agents for the monitoring authority. However, such agents would, of course, need to be authorised by the monitoring authority. It is highly unlikely that a debt collection agency would be so authorised, which I think was the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to put the record straight. My concern is not limited in the way that the Minister indicates. I fear that the power is wider than has been suggested, and reserve the right to return to the matter on Report, subject to the usual agreements.Clause 17 Strategy for England

Clause 17 - Strategy for England

Amendment proposed [8 April]: No. 59, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 27, after 'production', insert 'or'. —[Mr. Wiggin.]

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 4, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 28, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 5, in 
clause 18, page 12, line 40, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 6, in 
clause 19, page 13, line 28, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 7, in 
clause 20, page 14, line 16, leave out 'or energy recovery'.
 Amendment No. 8, in 
clause 22, page 15, line 28, after 'sorting', insert 
 ', but not including incineration'.

New clause 5 - Strategies for incineration: England

'.—(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Scottish Ministers, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 6 - Strategies for incineration: Scotland

'.—(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate. 
 (3) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 7 - Strategies for incineration: Wales

'.—(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Assembly must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 8 - Strategies for incineration: Northern Ireland

'.—(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy for— 
 (a) Placing a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste. 
 (b) Reducing the amount of waste that is sent for incineration at existing sites. 
 (c) Extending the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 (2) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), the Department must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (3) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsection (1). 
 (4) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (3), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 9 - Strategies for incineration: England

'(1) The Secretary of State must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The Secretary of State will set out in Regulations: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State for the Home Office, the Environment Agency and the Mayor of London, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government as he considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of industry as he considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as he considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Secretary of State must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Scottish Ministers, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 10 - Strategies for incineration: Scotland

'(1) The Scottish Ministers must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The Scottish Ministers will set out in legislation: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Scottish Ministers must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the Department of the Environment and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of local government as they consider appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to them to be representative of the interests of industry as they consider appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as they consider appropriate. 
 (4) The Scottish Ministers must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the National Assembly for Wales, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 11 - Strategies for incineration: Wales

'.—(1) The National Assembly for Wales must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The National Assembly for Wales will set out in legislation: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Assembly must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Department of the Environment and the Environment Agency, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Assembly must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Assembly must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the Department of the Environment.'.

New clause 12 - Strategies for incineration: Northern Ireland

'.—(1) The Department of the Environment must have a strategy for assessing the environmental and health impacts from incinerators. 
 (2) The Department of the Environment will set out in legislation: 
 (a) that all currently operating incinerators will begin continuous monitoring of dioxin emissions; 
 (b) that waste disposal authorities must produce waste strategies that do not require the building of new incinerators. 
 (3) Before formulating policy for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Department must— 
 (a) consult the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales, 
 (b) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of local government as it considers appropriate, 
 (c) consult such bodies or persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of industry as it considers appropriate, and 
 (d) carry out such public consultation as it considers appropriate. 
 (4) The Department must set out in a statement any policy formulated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2). 
 (5) The Department must, as soon as a statement is prepared for the purposes of subsection (4), send a copy of it to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Scottish Ministers, and 
 (c) the National Assembly for Wales.'.

New clause 32 - Moratorium on new municipal incinerators

'The Secretary of State shall introduce a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until— 
 (a) each responsible local authority, either directly or indirectly by cooperation with other stakeholders, can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where it is economically viable; 
 (b) all local waste management strategies conform to standardised national waste management criteria, which will be specified by the Secretary of State, which can be met through various ways according to local conditions, which should ensure: 
 (i) extraction or recycling of metal; 
 (ii) removal of organic and other green waste to produce compost; 
 (iii) recycling of paper and card; 
 (iv) recycling of wood; 
 (v) recycling of colour separated glass, or, where colour separation is impossible, recycling as cullet for road building etc.; 
 (vi) recycling of certain plastics; 
 (vii) minimal transportation of waste to keep traffic and pollution levels down; 
 (viii) recovery of energy from those forms of waste which it is economically nonviable to recycle, given the inferior quality of the recyclate; 
 (ix) lower energy costs to the locality for energy supply from the local recycling plant—probably only viable with new developments; 
 (x) high quality and regular monitoring of the facility to ensure continued safety to the local community; and 
 (c) the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.'.

David Drew: I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) summed up neatly most of what I wanted to say.
 I should like to add a couple of points about the moratorium on incineration, which is favoured by both Opposition parties. I do not understand the logic of the moratorium. I believe strongly that the move towards incineration is wrong; it arises for two reasons that are outside our control. First, it is the line that most of our fellow EU states have chosen. Being a tinge Eurosceptic, I am uncertain as to whether the desire to prioritise incineration over landfill exists because the majority of states have chosen to go along that route. If they had gone along the landfill route, we would have a different perspective on the most unacceptable way of getting rid of waste. I am sceptical when landfill is portrayed as the worst of all evils—it is an evil, but it is put over as the worst because that is helpful to other EU states, which find that position beneficial in the short run. 
 If my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) were here, he would be able to comment on the investigation of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, during which Committee members went to Denmark where, pleasingly, they have a differential tax system. They tax landfill most heavily, but they also tax incineration, which is something that we could learn from.

Norman Baker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who seems to be saying two things. First, he is saying that incineration should be even further down the hierarchy, in which case there would be greater justification for a moratorium. Secondly, he supports a tax on incineration: does he share my disappointment that such a tax was not included in yesterday's Budget?

David Drew: I would like to go further in that direction. Until a strategy is put in place, however, it will be difficult to implement a tax regime. We have learned from the gruesome experience of the climate change levy that it is necessary not only to implement the tax but to win the arguments. Although I support the CCL, we must change people's consciousness, which has been difficult.
 The obsession with incineration, which could be seen as the easy, simple solution in this country, has come about through decisions taken outside our control. I do not want us to go down that route. In Denmark, the great evil is landfill, and people's mindset is such that they do not want it near them and are happier to have an incinerator. The mindset in 
 this country is very different. With the best will in the world, we can take a national position, but our devolved planning system makes it impossible to get planning permission for incinerators. It may be possible further to increase capacity where there is existing landfill, but, as I argued on Second Reading, landfill is an urban solution. It may have limited merit in urbanised communities, where, unless waste is exported, it is hard to remove the most difficult waste from the waste stream. 
 In conclusion, I believe that waste has must be dealt with at the level at which it occurs, which means households and, more particularly, local authorities. As long as the resources are made available, I would return the responsibility to local government, which has the planning means to exercise its right to oppose incineration. We do not therefore need a moratorium. Local government should also take responsibility for leading people to find better ways to dispose of rubbish or encouraging them not to create it in the first place. I feel very strongly about that. 
 Moratoriums do serve their purpose, and there is always a suspicion that they will make things better; but I do not think that a moratorium will make things better. It will simply delay our reaching the point at which we decide that we must use methods other than landfill and incineration to reduce and to remove waste. 
 I am not very happy with the various new clauses that have been tabled, although I understand why they have been. The Minister kindly came to my constituency, where people who are against incineration lobbied him. We should be honest and open with them and say that incineration is not the preferred method. Local authorities should be encouraged not to go along that route, which should be a clearly stated national strategy that is picked up locally.

Gregory Barker: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and sympathise with several of his points. However, I did not follow why he could not support the new clauses tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal party. I did not understand why he could not vote with us on this occasion for a moratorium on new municipal incinerators.
 To summarise why we tabled the amendments, there is a signal lack of ambition in the Bill and that is a wasted opportunity. The Minister has made great play of the fact that the Bill is relatively narrowly focused—it does a specific job to do with landfill. I am sure that in its narrow focus it will be a good Bill, and all the better for having been considered by the Committee. However, the Bill lacks the drive, purpose and vision that are all too wanting in the Government's policy on the environment. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I tell hon. Members that that is a recurring theme throughout the Government's approach to the environment. 
 That lack is not due to a lack of trying on the part of the Minister, who is widely respected for his views and commitment on the issue. However, his reputation does not speak for the Government. During the Committee's proceedings the Minister has pressed us to trust his assurances that he is in earnest when addressing the problems of the waste hierarchy. However, the sad reality is that the Minister is unable to commit the Government in a way that many hon. Members and others would like him to. Although I do not mean it as a personal criticism, a totem of the Government's lack of commitment to the green agenda is the fact that this able Minister is not a member of the Cabinet. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I have flattered and embarrassed him and I am sure that that will not do me any good. If the Government were convinced of the need to put the green agenda at the heart of policy, they would have a Minister with such convictions in the Cabinet, yet they do not. Although I am sure that the Secretary of State is a safe pair of hands, she is better known for her love of caravanning than for her commitment to reducing carbon emissions. That must change. 
 When the Secretary of State last gave evidence before the EAC, she chided me for my youth, which I can do nothing about, although it will change over time. She said something like, ''When you were just a lad, Mr. Barker, I was, blah, blah, blah, working the system back in the 1970s.'' However, she had a point: our differences might be a generational thing. My generation and younger generations are more ambitious and want to see a more holistic commitment to the environment, but the Bill signally fails to live up to those hopes and ambitions. They are addressed in new clause 32, which proposes a comprehensive response to the need for a new, firm, statute-based hierarchy for waste. We need to minimise, reduce, recycle and compost more—there is cross-party support for that view. The issue boils down to whether we are prepared to give such a regime real teeth, statutory backing and resources. 
 Although the Minister has detailed several good initiatives and has worked hard over the years to bring forth various measures, a thicket of individual initiatives is no substitute for a single, holistic, thought-through programme, and it is unfortunate that we still do not have that. 
 The Minister has talked about new technologies and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned new types of gasification and pyrolysis and exciting new technologies. They could create a new generation of incineration projects that will go a long way to dispel a lot of widespread and well-founded public fears about incineration. The reality, however, is that the Bill does absolutely nothing to address the need for those technologies or to incentivise their manufacture. Nor was there anything in the Budget yesterday to address the need to bring on such initiatives. 
 In responding to points about the huge incinerator building programme, which will double large scale incinerator capacity over the next few years, the Minister implied that the new generation of incinerators comprised only micro-projects, 
 employing the very latest technology, but that is simply not the case. His own parliamentary answers show that the incinerators on the list would handle about 220,000 tonnes a year on average, resulting in increased capacity of 2.7 million tonnes a year. These are not small, community-based, cutting-edge technology plants; they are big, old-fashioned, large scale incinerators. 
 That is the situation in my constituency, and I have the same concerns and address the same problems as does the hon. Member for Lewes. The problem is that we must not only take people's rubbish from a long way away, but commit to doing so for up to 20 years, because of private finance initiative rules. Long after people in East Sussex will, we hope, have grasped the recycling and reuse nettle, there will still be a huge, insatiable demand for rubbish to burn in these huge plants. It may have to come from Kent, Surrey and London, and even from across the channel. 
 The Bill sends out the signal that we are starting to address the landfill issue, but that we are not prepared to do anything meaningful about the huge long-term threat of incineration. The 20-year contracts for huge plants make the issue urgent. We cannot wait for a review with no date attached to it or for the Treasury to get around to thinking about this; we need action now. New clause 32 gives us an opportunity to address the problem—here, today, in this sitting. 
 Nothing in the new clause should trouble anyone who is serious about the environment and who has thought through the problems of incineration; nothing in it should prompt profound concerns. It may not be perfect; indeed, I can vouch for the fact that it may not be, because I had a hand in drafting it. However, it is the best measure available. If the Government do not support it, perhaps they will support the relevant Liberal Democrat new clause. 
 There are two issues at the heart of new clause 32. One is the hierarchy—ensuring that everything that can be recycled or reused is removed from the waste stream before it goes to incineration. The other relates to fiscal measures; they are the most pressing issue and the most glaring omission from the Bill. The Bill will displace waste from landfill to incineration. The Minister can protest as much as he likes, but he is a lone voice on this issue. I doubt that a single major, credible witness in the environmental field would stand up and say that there will be no economic displacement from landfill to incineration as long as the Treasury fails to introduce new measures to address the economic imbalance. 
 It was, I think, the hon. Member for Stafford who took me to task for referring simply to fiscal measures, but I did so deliberately. I am not prescribing whether they should involve a tax, tax relief, a tax subsidy, a grant or an incentive, but we must address the fact that the new technology is making incineration cheaper, while landfill is becoming more expensive. Like flood waters, waste will not disappear. Putting a barrier on landfill will simply redirect a growing amount of waste towards incineration.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that local authorities
 throughout the country are making decisions about incinerators now, so if in a year or two the Treasury introduces an incinerator tax, for example—which we support—it will be of little use because local authorities will have made contracts for 25 years?

Gregory Barker: That is exactly the point that I was endeavouring to make. The hon. Gentleman has encapsulated it and I am grateful to him for that help. It is now that the decisions are being made. The contract in East Sussex has already been signed. If the measures are not to be encapsulated in the Bill, they should have been in the Budget. We must now wait 12 months for another Budget.
 Mr. Peter Jones, not the esteemed leader of East Sussex county council but Biffa's director of external affairs, told ePolitix.com yesterday: 
''It's hardly surprising that the Chancellor has failed to respond to calls for levelling the financial playing field for innovative resource efficient processing technologies compared to the landfill option. This merely confirms what we have come to expect when considering the Prime Minister's rhetoric, which has more ambition than substance.''
 He continued: 
''Given the relatively marginal impact on corporate costs compared to the immense gains in resource efficiency, society is the long term loser.''
 He concluded: 
''At least we know that with Gordon Brown's timetable we won't achieve parity with landfill until 2011—well beyond the 'crunch' period of 2006/8 when many European obligations land on the mat.
The absence of any reference to enabling legislation in this finance act with regard to charging households for waste merely confirms the political fears this administration has when tinkering with environmental economic instruments.''
 Tinkering is what we will do today if we do not agree to new clause 32. We all know what the problem is and we all know the size of the challenge, but we are just tinkering with the system. For the Minister to say that the Government may return with a new Bill at an unspecified date or that there are already sufficient legislative powers is simply not good enough. It will be to the eternal discredit of us all if there is a new generation of huge incinerators in the next 20 years because we failed to make a change in time to prevent them, because we failed to embrace the technologies that the hon. Member for Stafford spoke about and because we failed to address the fears that the hon. Member for Stroud articulated. We have a responsibility to be bold and creative, to take the initiative and to encourage the Minister, who is able and hugely respected, to have the courage of his convictions. He should speak for all of us and make this not just a tinkering Bill but one that pushes the envelope across the table.

Sue Doughty: We had an extensive debate on incineration on Tuesday which was, sadly, cut short because of lack of time. I do not want to repeat what was said then, but further points should be made before leaving the topic.
 We all agree that incineration is not desirable, and the Minister has indicated that he is not comfortable with it. The two Opposition groups have also indicated strongly that they are not comfortable with the 
 situation. We all agree that we must reduce the total amount of waste sent to landfill and not just the increase in that amount, which is all that we are doing at the moment. That is how we can meet the EU directives and move towards a sustainable waste strategy. Yet we are still in a mess. 
 It is curious that we Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seem to be putting forward a more radical approach. I am heartened by the fact that the Committee has chosen not to score political points because we are all vulnerable to the problem of what councils have been forced to do in the interests of expediency, as opposed to what they could be inspired to do given carrots and sticks to move them forward. 
 I am aware of at least one county in which nearly all the borough councils are against incineration, and the county's MPs also seem to have concluded that incineration is a bad thing. The county council is still proposing that incineration should take place, and the leader of the council is using his position as chair of the regional non-elected assembly to push for incineration. Much of the reason for that is the lack of viable options. We will not oppose any proposal for a moratorium on incineration, although we have some concerns about the detail of new clause 32. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) generously said that certain parts of it could be improved, and I take that on board. 
 One need not be young to be passionate about this subject. I shall probably have grandchildren one day, and I want things to be good for them. Hopefully, there is a ray of sunshine that is converting even older people—if we are not already converted. The problem may only be a matter of wording, and I am sure that hon. Members will be able to help me. The new clause suggests that there should be a moratorium on incineration until 
''each responsible local authority . . . can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste where it is economically viable''.
 That would seem to suggest that if it is not economically viable, and we have heard many reasons why it may not be, we might quickly find that incineration is the only solution. 
 Subsection (b) of new clause 32 suggests that recovery of energy is acceptable from those forms of waste 
''which it is economically non-viable to recycle, given the inferior quality of the recyclate''.
 Given that we can do a lot with the recyclates—I think this is referred to in other clauses—I am slightly worried about that phrase in the new clause. The problem is how one interprets it. If one wanted to be hostile, one might say that, given those conditions, it would be very easy to get out of the moratorium. I would welcome any comments on that. 
 Under the present fiscal regime, sustainable waste management is not economically viable, and I share the concerns of others that the Bill includes nothing about a waste tax, which would give local government the opportunity to plan for sustainable waste management.

Gregory Barker: I will not have a chance, unless I intervene now, to respond to the points that the hon. Lady is making. I understand what she has said, but it is absolutely critical that recycling and incineration are grounded in good economics. We must understand that there are economic drivers at work. We cannot divorce ourselves from the real world and pile huge costs on to the public. We must be economically responsible as well as environmentally ambitious. If we divorce the two, we will not achieve our environmental ambitions.

Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. My concern is that, until the Government do something about a decent waste tax, the provision will not be economically viable.

Gregory Barker: I absolutely agree, which is why subsection (c) says that there will be a moratorium until
''the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.''
 That was the key point that I made earlier, and it is the most important part of the new clause.

Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. We have many problems in creating a sustainable waste strategy. The hon. Member for Stafford mentioned pyrolysis and gasification. At present, pyrolysis tends to work better when there is a single waste stream rather than a mixed one. We would be forced to sort waste at source, and if pyrolysis is to be used we should ensure that we optimise it and are comfortable with it.
 New clause 32 does not include any reference to health risks, and although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, those can be exaggerated, they remain a real concern. The strategy unit report wisely called for a review of the health risks associated with each form of waste disposal, and I would like that to be done as quickly as possible. The public worry about gasification, landfill and incineration, and they have difficulty in following the figures that are bandied about. If an incinerator is proposed for their area, they worry, for example, about the technology that will be used in it, without being aware that it might be different from that used in other incinerators.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that new clause 32 makes no mention of health risks. I thought long and hard when drafting the clause about whether I should insert such a reference and decided not to. The health risks trouble me, but I know that the Minister has emphatically rejected the suggestion that there are significant health risks. I did not want that to be a cause of disagreement in the Committee; I wanted to make it as easy as possible for Labour Members to support the new clause.

Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, although I do not entirely agree with him, as the strategy unit report recommends that the health risks be assessed. In fairness, it is difficult to develop a waste strategy, as the chief executive of the Environment Agency says, when few methods of waste disposal, whether sustainable or non-sustainable—and we do not believe incineration to
 be sustainable—are entirely desirable, particularly if one lives next door to them. Would in-vessel composting create the same public concern as incineration? The report is essential to inform the public and Members about the relevant health risks so that councillors, who must bear responsibility for the people in their area, can make appropriate decisions.
 We would support a call for a moratorium on incineration. We can do a great deal without incineration, although the Minister has said that he has reservations about zero waste. Steps can be taken to make huge reductions in the amount of waste that is sent for incineration. In-vessel composting of waste, and basing small plants close to where waste is generated—the proximity principle—would be more sustainable than the whopping great incinerators that nobody wants. The waste sent to in-vessel composters could be pre-sorted to recover materials to be reused for a much more constructive purpose. In-vessel composting can render materials inert and thus avoid the seagulls and vermin that landfill attracts. 
 A great deal more can be done to stimulate the exchange of materials at amenity sites, and I attended a meeting of Guildford council to discuss its plans for such a site at Guildford. Several people were very disappointed because they felt that although there will be much more opportunity for recycling and sorting waste, much more could have been done to facilitate the marketing and exchange of materials for reuse. That would have been the most environmentally desirable option. Waste contracts could be reduced to 10 years instead of 25 years—we are all wincing at the fact that some councils have got themselves into 25-year contracts. Incineration will be the preferred option because the economics of such contracts will dictate it. 
 We could provide better education for people, and I pay tribute to the Minister for his efforts in that regard. Most of us go back to our little flats at night and want to unwind. We find ourselves sitting with a mountain of paperwork, copies of debates and so on, and we flick through the television channels to catch up on the news or on anything that is not current affairs, and clear our minds ready for the next day. What should I see on the Disney channel late at night but the Minister, with a child interviewer, demonstrating how to recycle at a plastics bank? The Minister is doing his best to reach a particularly important group.

Ashok Kumar: We need a statue now.

Sue Doughty: Yes. I was most intrigued that Disney should have repeated the programme late at night. It must have been entranced by the film; perhaps it was thought to be the most important programme that could be shown at that time. I do not normally watch Disney, but it was an arresting sight.

David Drew: Would the hon. Lady agree that among those who need to be educated are councillors, inasmuch as they have absolutely no reason to talk about incineration and are able to consider alternatives? I suspect that the incineration process is
 driven by the industry, which wants to keep that option open—I heard what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had to say. However, councillors have it within their power to find alternatives means of disposing of their waste.

Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that good point. Those of us who have been worrying about what councils are doing are conscious of the influence of the waste industry, particularly on council officers. If we are not effective in explaining that officers can take a more independent view, councillors might be getting slightly biased information about what they can do. That is where the health report based on the recommendations of the strategy unit could be helpful, as it would assist councillors in understanding the pros and cons of various methods of incineration.
 New clause 5, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, would deal with our concerns about incineration. We do not describe other methods because there are many alternatives to incineration; if we did include them, we would for ever be changing them, as new technologies became available month by month. We simply suggest a moratorium until the review of the health and environmental impact is completed. We need a strategy for reducing the amount of waste not only to landfill but to incineration. The simplest thing to do would be to extend the landfill tax to incorporate incineration. 
 Those points are included in the new clause. It also provides for consultation of those bodies that are representative of the interests of local government. It is interesting to note that an unelected region could make recommendations about our waste.

Alan Whitehead: On the question of consulting local councils and their associations, would the hon. Lady be willing, as a direct result of this debate, to ask the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors whether it would be prepared to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said and put out information to its local members on the inadvisability of entering into long-term incineration contracts? I say that with some feeling because in my part of the world the political party that was most keen to do that was the then ruling Liberal Democrat group; indeed, it signed on the dotted line for a 25-year incineration contract between Hampshire county council and a private sector company.

Sue Doughty: I take those comments in a generous spirit, given that none of us wants to make political capital, as I could about certain other councils and county council leaders. I said what I did to reflect the fact that there is no political group formed by the major parties that has not signed such a contract, perhaps because the level of education has not been adequate.
 I have some good news for the hon. Gentleman: our parliamentary team is now working with the Liberal Democrat group in the Local Government Association and with leading councillors. Given the limited resources available to us from parliamentary and 
 other funds, we want to ensure that what we are saying goes back to local councillors, so that they understand what we are doing in Parliament and realise what opportunities they have. We are in direct communication with Liberal Democrats in the LGA for that very reason. I can understand why the point has been made, and I am glad to say that the work is already in progress.

Alan Whitehead: I should add that, at that stage, the contract was supported by the Labour group on the county council.

Sue Doughty: I cannot say any more. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's original point in a spirit of generosity and he has followed that through, which is very welcome. I agree with many points that were made earlier, especially the strong speech made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about incineration. New clause 5 fully encapsulates our concerns. I do not know how you, Mr. Griffiths, propose to deal with the alternative new clauses on the same topic, but we will press for a vote on new clause 5.

David Kidney: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. If the Minister was seen on the Disney channel showing off recycling facilities, I hope that they were not Mickey Mouse measures.
 I want to make two points, which I preface by saying that I do not wish to detract in the slightest from the powerful speeches that we have heard from all quarters about the dangers of large-scale incineration. The dozen or so projects in the planning system clearly place pressure on the Minister, and he needs to attend to that. 
 I should like to speak about the new technologies that I have mentioned in interventions and on which other hon. Members have commented. They cover a range of activities. At one end, they are not to do with waste recovery at all but with renewable energy—they enable us to burn in a carbon dioxide-neutral way products like wood, willow and miscanthus and produce electricity or combined heat and power. The same technology can also recover energy from mixed waste, and, using pyrolysis and gasification, it can produce electricity and heat in the same way. 
 That range of technologies can also assist in recovery and recycling. The autocleave, or steam cleaning, processes can take waste that has been recovered and turn it out cleaner than it went in. The same technology can clean the difficult wet recyclables, such as paper with bits of food on it, which need more than steam cleaning, through integrated treatments known as ITT—I regret that I do not know what that stands for. The process involves a range of activities and it would be wrong to tag it all as incineration. I do not overlook, although it is not part of the technology, other processes such as aerobic and anaerobic composting. 
 It is worth making a small point about fiscal measures. Such technologies, where they are of proven environmental benefit, attract 100 per cent. capital allowances on both purchase and installation in the 
 year in which they are bought and installed. That measure was introduced in a previous Budget, and it is very welcome. 
 That was the first point that I wanted to set straight for the Committee. The other is slightly more modest, but it is worth making, and it completes a story that I began on Second Reading. It concerns a project in my area, where Staffordshire county council is the waste disposal authority. A proposal was put to the authority which involved energy recovery through burning waste and producing electricity. The council declined to support it, claiming that it was under a duty from the Government to consider recycling as it was higher up the waste management hierarchy than incineration, and relying on a best value performance indicator called BV82A. The council was quite firm and, as a result, the project has been rejected. 
 The Minister has written to me since Second Reading to give the county council's decision his complete backing. The council stuck to its guns and relied on its best value performance indicator to turn down a project that I, personally, should have liked to succeed. That proves, in a modest way, that although Opposition Members say that the waste hierarchy must be in the Bill to prove that it is holistic and embedded and so on, the Government have been systematically embedding their hierarchy since the waste management strategy was published in 2000. In a small way, that shows that the Government are ahead of what people say that they should do.

Michael Meacher: Because of the passion and commitment of those who have contributed and the virtual absence of political rancour, this has been one of the best debates that I can recall in Parliament for a considerable time. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is right to say that almost no political party is completely free from some involvement in incineration, and we should recognise that. However, we are all united in believing that further serious consideration should be given to the issue, and the debate has been excellent.
 One of the main concerns behind the amendments and new clauses is that waste disposal authorities will use incineration as the main method of diverting waste from landfill. The hon. Member for Lewes made that point strongly on Second Reading and again in this debate. There is a concern that recycling and more sustainable methods of waste management will be squeezed out. However, there is no strong evidence to suggest that that is likely. 
 Although I appreciate that hon. Members were talking about how things might change, I point out that the United Kingdom currently incinerates only 9 per cent. of municipal waste, yet it landfills nearly 80 per cent. and recycles or composts 13 per cent—those are the latest figures. Incineration is therefore the least favoured waste management option in the UK. It might surprise many people in the country and perhaps some members of the Committee to hear that most of our European partners have much higher rates of incineration. I do not suggest that we should imitate them in that, but that happens to be a fact, even in countries that have a strong green or sustainable record. It is curious that many such 
 countries have not only a high rate of incineration, but high rates of recycling. For example, the Netherlands incinerates 41 per cent. of its waste, but it also recycles or composts 47 per cent. Denmark, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited, incinerates 50 per cent. of its waste and recycles or composts 39 per cent. 
 I put it to the Committee that it does not follow that waste disposal authorities will choose incineration over and above other forms of waste management if we do not provide legislative disincentives for it, because there are already disincentives in this country. Incinerators require significant upfront capital investment. They are also very unpopular and, I would judge, increasingly so, which leads to long delays in securing planning permission and to the rejection of applications. It can take up to 10 years to introduce an incinerator. Those are serious considerations when people expect a return on large capital outlays. 
 Furthermore, local planning authorities are required to have regard to national policies, including the waste strategy, when drawing up development plans that provide a framework for planning decisions. I appreciate that members of the Committee may take the view that the phrase ''have regard to'' is not that strong, because someone could say that they have had regard to national policies in deciding to do the opposite of them. In law, however, the definition is stronger than that. 
 If one went against the national policy on waste strategy, one would have to give convincing reasons. It is important to note that ''Waste Strategy 2000'' does not invite a rapid or significant increase in incineration. It is intended to underpin the individual decisions on waste policies made by local authorities. When requests come to me, particularly with regard to the PFI, I intend to take account of the strategy in my review.

Gregory Barker: I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the Minister is actively encouraging incineration. The key point, which has been raised around the Committee, is that the Government are not doing enough to discourage incineration. Can he confirm that the 14 major incinerators currently going through the planning system—he gave that figure in response to a parliamentary question—will double the current capacity to about 16 per cent. of total waste disposal? He has mentioned the significant capital expenditure on incinerators, but firms must sign contracts for 20 to 25 years in order to repay the capital under PFI, which will preclude exciting, innovative and ambitious recycling and reuse schemes for a generation. Will he address that problem?

Michael Meacher: I have a copy of the list of new applications to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the most important point is that it refers to planned, not actual, capacity. Some, but certainly not all, the planning applications have been granted. Only three have a capacity of more than 200,000 tonnes and can therefore reasonably be regarded as being large
 incinerators. There is not a threshold point at which an incinerator can be regarded as being large, and some of those incinerators are certainly small. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that even an application for a small incinerator, for which there may be good reasons in a particular local area and which may provide combined heat and power as an adjunct, should be rejected automatically without regard to the particular circumstances? That is the difference between us, and it is difficult to justify his position.
 The hon. Gentleman has said some extraordinarily generous things, which, of course, I reject, so it would be curmudgeonly of me to point out that the incoming Conservative council in Essex—I am surprised that the hon. Member for Lewes has not made this point, which he has made on the Floor of the House—made great play of its total rejection of all incineration. As soon as it got into power, however, it proposed a range of incinerators. [Interruption.] I am sorry; the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made that point on the Floor of the House. Lord Inglewood was the leader of that council, and he changed tack. It is a problem that local authorities consider incinerators to be cheaper than some other options.

Gregory Barker: Cheaper?

Michael Meacher: It is. I am not trying to conceal the fact that landfill is cheapest, incinerators are next cheapest and recycling is more expensive, although not significantly so. There are also implications for jobs, which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. There is, of course, the environmental issue of sustainability and concerns about the health and social implications of incineration, which I shall come to.
 Incineration is a difficult issue, and I shall discuss a moratorium in depth.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is the definition of incineration? As part of the waste inquiry by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we visited cement industry premises. The industry is adamant that it does not use incineration, but it could use its capacity to get rid of some waste, which would help and could not be termed ''incineration''. Similarly, the problem with combined heat and power is that its definition merges with that of incineration. On the radio last night, we heard about South East London Combined Heat and Power, which produces combined heat and power through the removal of waste. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to clarify the definitions?

Michael Meacher: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am not sure that this is the point at which we can have a wider debate, but if he wants me to go into particular details, I shall be happy to pursue the matter, to which we can perhaps return this afternoon.

Norman Baker: This intervention may be less helpful than the last. The Minister has an upside-down hierarchy in which landfill is apparently cheapest, incineration is the next cheapest and recycling is more expensive. Opposition Members fervently believe that we need to change that hierarchy to avoid ending up with incinerators.
 The Minister said that about 78 per cent. of waste is disposed of in landfill. We have to reduce that figure to 35 per cent., and, if my mathematics are correct, 43 per cent. of waste will have to go somewhere other than landfill. Where will that waste go? Will it go to recycling or incineration? The Minister mentioned that Holland has 41 per cent. incineration and 47 per cent. recycling. In my contribution on Tuesday, I suggested that we will end up incinerating one third of waste, recycling one third and landfilling one third. Will we end up in such a situation? What is the Minister's prediction on the amount of waste that will be incinerated in 10 years' time?

Michael Meacher: I cannot predict exactly where we will be in 10 years' time, and it would be foolish to try. Personally, I do not think that the figure will be anywhere near the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I can put the question back to him: is he suggesting that there is no place whatsoever for any incineration, in spite of the colossal amount of waste that must be transferred from landfill? If we took no action between now and 2016, my officials have calculated that we would need to deal with 30 to 40 million tonnes of waste. Where should that 30 to 40 million tonnes go? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that all that waste can go into recycling, reuse and recovery, or that it would not be created as a result of waste minimisation policies? I would love to believe that that will be the case, but it is not a serious idea.
 I do not believe that some of the colossal amount of waste that must be shifted from landfill will not have to be dealt with by incineration. Indeed, incineration may be the most appropriate solution for materials such as clinical waste, hazardous waste and asbestos, because it is the best practicable environmental option. I expect incineration to play a small role, but it is not serious politics to suggest that its role will be zero.

Ashok Kumar: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention a comment by Professor Ronald Clift, who is a distinguished professor of environmental technology at the university of Surrey? At a press conference on 17 March, he said:
''The idea that recycling is a solution to everything is not valid''.
 That is my right hon. Friend's precise point. The distinguished professor supports us and not the Opposition parties.

Michael Meacher: I am very grateful to hear that the professor and I share the same view. That view is serious, and I would insist on it. If it were to be denied, I would want to know the grounds on which there could be a zero transfer to incineration.

Norman Baker: First, we were allowed 35 per cent. landfill. Secondly, only 9 per cent. of the system is incineration. Neither we nor the Conservatives have suggested that that capacity should be closed, so that takes 44 per cent., leaving 56 per cent. to be dealt with—[Interruption.]—35 plus nine is 44, which leaves 56 per cent. to be dealt with. The Minister will know that other countries in Europe manage to recycle more than 50 per cent. of their waste. He will also know that
 some local authorities in this country have schemes that recycle more than 50 per cent. of waste. If the Government get the economic instruments right and provide support for local government, it will not be impossible to do that. If he insists that there is 2 per cent. growth in waste each year, which is a bitterly pessimistic target, it may be difficult, but it could be achieved if the Government were determined. It is not impossible, and I do not accept that we must go down the incineration route.
 My point, which has also been made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and others, is that the indicators at the moment point to incineration. The Minister said a moment ago that, nothwithstanding delays and so on, landfill is represented as a cheaper and easier option for local authorities than the plethora of other measures that would have to be put in place, so they are going for incineration. We are saying that we need a strategy that is far more ambitious than any previously suggested, and that we can avoid the massive increase in incineration that will, unfortunately, occur without that strategy.

Michael Meacher: I do not agree with a number of those points. First, let me make it clear that the 44 per cent. includes industrial and commercial waste. The figure for municipal waste, which is what the Bill covers, is 8 per cent. or 9 per cent., which gives a different picture. I accept that it is not being suggested that current incinerators should be closed, although I shall come to a significant point that the tightening of emissions standards under the EU's waste incineration directive, which we are in the process of implementing, could have that effect.
 The hon. Gentleman said that we should be able to achieve 50 per cent., which is the figure in the private Member's Bill before the House. That may or may not be possible, but I would be the first to say that when we achieve our objective of 25 per cent. by 2005–06, we can go well beyond that. There is no doubt about that. Instead of plucking figures from the air and attaching them to a date, we should plan carefully. Within another five or 10 years, we can go substantially further. The question is: even if we achieve between 40 and 50 per cent. by 2010 or 2015, is that consistent with no increase at all in incineration? I beg leave to insist that one should not foreclose on that option. 
 The hon. Gentleman said that I had said that incineration is a cheaper and easier option. I agree that it is cheaper than some recycling reuse recovery, and I make no bones about that because we should be honest about the figures, but I did not say that it is easier. One aspect is public opinion, because the matter is becoming a politically serious issue in local authorities, and it may even be so in a general election. I welcome that because it is no bad thing. In terms of planning rules, it is discouraging and not easier. That is appropriate. In a moment I shall come to further measures that will discourage an increase in incineration.

Gregory Barker: I am listening carefully to the Minister, but I do not understand his logic for not accepting new clause 32, which is that he sees a need for small and specialist incinerators to deal with particular hazards. We are not concerned with the
 small and specialist incinerators that the Minister seems to be concerned with. We are concerned with incinerators such as the one that has just been given planning permission at Maidstone, which will have a capacity of 500,000 tonnes a year. We are concerned with the one that has just been granted planning permission at Slough, which will have a capacity of 400,000 tonnes a year. We are concerned with the one that has just been granted planning permission at Sheffield, which will have a 225,000-tonne capacity. Many such incinerators have been mentioned in the Minister's parliamentary questions, or are known to be in the pipeline.
 We are concerned with the big issue, and the Minister misses the point when he talks about the little, specialist incinerators. We must not proceed with further incineration until a sound fiscal regime is in place to address the economic imbalances that he himself admits exist and which provide the economic infrastructure on which huge incinerators are predicated.

Michael Meacher: That is exactly what we have done. The other aspects of the strategy are well known to the hon. Gentleman, who is extremely well informed about the issue. We have laid down pretty testing statutory recycling targets—they are as testing as we thought we could realistically make them. Once we get to 2005–06, we will take them further, although the Government have no immediate plans in that respect. I agree that we should mirror practice in Europe, where targets are between 30 and 40 per cent. in many cases, and sometimes higher. Of course, we can do that, and we shall put in place measures to try to ensure that that happens.
 We shall also provide funding; indeed, we have made substantial funding available. I repeat, we shall put an extra £1.75 billion into environmental, protective and cultural services over the current five-year period. In addition, there is the challenge fund of £140 million for the PFI. That does not mean mass-burn incineration. Of course, it is not excluded, but it is certainly not what is implied. The projects that I have approved do not include incineration. They have increased in value by 60 per cent. in the current spending review. Additionally, there is £50 million for community recycling. That is a very substantial package. 
 We have tried to use the waste and resources action programme to find markets so that the substantial increase in recycling products has a use. We are doing that because we realise that although some countries are much better than us at recycling, they still end up putting everything in landfill. 
 So, we have done all the right things. We have put in place the necessary measures, framework and incentives, and we are now trying to go one step further by putting in place significant and effective levers and mechanisms to ensure that waste is minimised in the first place. I do not know what more we can do. I am very receptive to ideas, and if hon. Members suggest what we can do—[Interruption.] If one says that there should be a moratorium—

Norman Baker: Taxes.

Michael Meacher: Yes, I realise that that is the purpose of new clauses 5 and 32.
 The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle says, ''Don't worry about small incinerators with niche roles.'' Incidentally, I was not saying that incinerators only have such roles, and I did not exclude the possibility of other, larger incinerators. I am saying that we have a problem in particular areas, and I want to know how we shall be able to deal with it properly if we have an absolute moratorium on incineration. 
 The mood of the debate has been warm and amicable, so I hate to say that imposing moratoriums would take us back to a command-and-control system, under which we would tell people, ''You shall do this. You shall not do that.'' We are introducing a more flexible, market-driven process, which—[Interruption.] Yes, but there are good reasons for doing so. There is certainly nothing wrong with letting market forces operate in this area; indeed, they should do so. However, we are trying to structure the market in a way that produces the results that we all want. That is the Government's policy, which I think is sensible. It would be unwise to have an exclusion clause, under which increases in incineration would not be permitted whatever the circumstances, as President Chirac might say. Perhaps that is a good precedent.

Alan Whitehead: I wonder whether the phrase ''a good precedent'' is absolutely appropriate.
 Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials to look at the correspondence and plans that I have received from local authorities, which I have set out in detail in a rather boring report? My right hon. Friend would gain succour from it, because it is clear from those letters that local authorities do not get it. They are talking about the inevitability of incineration, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud says, they are also talking, in an unclear way, about various methods of small-scale incineration. The sort of definitions, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, together with better guidance and some indication of the alternatives, may provide an additional weapon in bringing about a change of approach.

Michael Meacher: I should be very pleased to do that. The Committee and I recognise my hon. Friend's knowledge and expertise, as well as the amount of work that he has undertaken on the issue. He has presented a formidable case, and, without prejudice, we should look at its implications and take full account of it. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has already sent the report to me.
Dr. Whitehead indicated dissent.

Michael Meacher: Ah, I ask because it takes time for things to reach my desk. If he has not already sent me the report, I hope that he will , because if he gives me a chance to look at it, I shall be pleased to do so, and if he wishes to have a meeting and to bring some other people to that meeting, we can examine the case in detail.
 May I turn to a highly relevant point, which I have not previously had a chance to make? Of course, in supporting capital investment, we are not seeking to encourage an incineration solution above others. The guidance for private finance initiative projects requires proposals that include incineration to demonstrate that all the opportunities for recycling have first been considered and that the project will not create a barrier to the longer-term development of recycling. Those are important considerations, which I insisted should be included in guidelines for the assessment of applications. Those were published in September 2000. 
 That is the basis on which applications are reviewed, and I am insistent that a case should be demonstrated. It is not enough just to say that; the case must be demonstrated and questions asked. None of these things can be proven, because it is not a matter of logic, but the case must be demonstrated reasonably and persuasively. That is the right way to ensure that incineration is used only where a real and reasonable case can be made for it.

Norman Baker: It is true that the Minister has heightened the PFI rules, and we are grateful for that but, unfortunately, he has not made the rules apply retrospectively, so PFI arrangements that were provisionally reached with the Government before the new guidance was issued have not been changed. Therefore, notwithstanding the representations that have been made to the Minister, in an attempt to ensure that the new rules would apply, they do not apply to East Sussex county council and to the proposals put forward by Brighton and Hove. Consequently, the succour that he gives us that recycling will be protected does not apply in the East Sussex case, where contracts for incineration have gone ahead without a public inquiry.

Michael Meacher: It is odd to say that the rules should apply retrospectively when incinerators have been built as a result of planning permission being granted. That is the de facto situation, and it cannot be reversed. The hon. Gentleman refers to an application that has been made and is in the process of being assessed before the local waste plan is put in place. The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded on that subject, and I have made it clear that applications will have to be consistent with the waste plan when it is published. That remains the position.
 The hon. Gentleman wants me to intervene, but I am advised that I am not in a position to intervene. It is a local authority matter, and the authority has a framework and criteria by which it is required to make its decisions. Unless it makes its decisions in a manner that is patently contrary to national criteria, Ministers do not have the right to intervene. However, I repeat that there are constraints on those local planning decisions, and those decisions have to be in accordance with the local waste plan. That constraint is relevant in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman. 
 There are strong disincentives to increasing the use of incineration, mainly because it is lower down the hierarchy than other options. It is difficult and expensive, and it is unpopular. As well as 
 disincentives, I accept that it is necessary to have in place positive incentives to encourage preferable alternatives to incineration. I absolutely agree with that. We have already provided local authorities with incentives, but in a less heavy-handed and less centralist way than suggested in the new clause. I repeat that imposing demanding statutory targets and providing adequate increases in funding meets that purpose. Targets are already in place; they will continue to ensure that local authorities must develop waste management options other than incineration. 
 New clauses 5 to 12 suggest an incineration tax—new clause 32 suggests other fiscal measures—to act as a disincentive to incineration and to encourage reuse and recycling. I do not disagree with that. Alternative technologies will be required to meet landfill directive targets. As noted in the strategy unit report, without assistance to tackle the perceived technical and financial barriers to the development and take-up of new technologies, those targets are unlikely to be met. 
 A programme of activities has been developed to take forward that recommendation in the strategy unit report. It is intended that the new technologies programme will divert 2.5 million tonnes of biodegradable municipal waste away from landfill per annum by 2009–10, the first trigger point in the landfill directive, by using waste management technologies other than incineration. The Treasury has already allocated £39 million to the delivery of that programme in England over the next three years. I insist that the Government are taking account of the thrust of the arguments that have been put to the Committee. We are responding. We are putting out money where our mouth is. That is the right way to proceed.

Norman Baker: The Minister has talked a lot about recycling, and the Government are certainly taking it more seriously, although whether it will reach the figures that we all want is another matter. What are the Government doing about No. 1 on the waste hierarchy, which is waste minimisation? By definition, local authorities cannot have a big role in that; they deal with the waste as it appears. Will the Minister list a few of the initiatives that he has taken to minimise waste and avoid the growth in the waste stream that he referred to the other day?

Michael Meacher: Yes, I can certainly do so, although that is somewhat at a tangent to the thrust of the debate—[Interruption.] Well, I think that it is. At this juncture, we are talking about whether the Government are giving incentives not only for recycling, reuse and recovery and waste minimisation, but to alternative technologies that may be more appropriate than mass-burn incineration. We are seeking to develop pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological treatment—and, no doubt, other technologies of which I am unaware. We are giving support to that and, although it may not be understood, we believe that those technologies can transfer 2,500,000 tonnes away from landfill every year by 2009–10 without using incineration. That is very significant.
 I admit that I cannot reel off an exhaustive list of our initiatives, but one of them is producer responsibility. That is designed to ensure that the producer or manufacturer will secure a form of disposal at the end of the lifetime of a product that ensures that it does not go to landfill, as is so often the case. We are doing that with electronic and electrical equipment and with cars and batteries. The motive comes from EU directives, but we strongly support it. 
 A second initiative, which may produce some slight amusement, although I hope not, is that on Monday I attend two engagements to encourage the real nappy network. [Interruption.] Yes, I thought that it was bound to provoke some amusement. Nevertheless, it is serious, as about 4 per cent. of landfill consists of nappies. Half the waste of a family with one baby will be the baby's disposable nappies. Finding a way to reuse nappies rather than dispose of them would reduce landfill. That should not be a source of amusement; it is a serious matter. Another example—

Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Meacher: I will not before I have told the hon. Gentleman, in case he was about to make the point, that I was gratified to see the press notice that said that tens of millions of tonnes of disposable nappies go to landfill every year, but that the Environment Minister Michael Meacher is determined to get to the bottom of it. [Laughter.]

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's humour, after he told us to be serious on the subject. Being a father involved in changing nappies, I have found that one of the problems with them—I do not think that the Minister's Department has looked at those problems, although I wish that it would—is not the nappies themselves but the glue and chemicals that are used to keep the child's bottom dry.
 The nappies used in Finland contain a different type of glue, and the Minister discussed using the washable type of nappy rather than a compostable one. The nappies that I saw can be composted in a wormery in eight days because the manufacturers use a totally different type of technology. I ask the Minister to ask his Department to look into the technology and the special glue that OKO uses in manufacturing its nappies, which are still disposable.

Michael Meacher: Well, the great advantage of this debate is that one does learn. I will be pleased to do that. I do not think that we should spend too much time on the specific alternative technologies, but the hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I shall be glad to pursue it if he sends me the relevant information.
 Another serious issue is junk mail, about which I feel very strongly. I suspect that, like me, hon. Members receive probably up to 10 letters a week, mainly from banks offering credit at a very low rate in order to seduce the recipient into taking out yet another credit card. That goes on on a very big scale. I am burdened and irritated by the amount of paper that I have to open and dispose of, and I am conscious that 
 it is disposed of and that it increases the pile of rubbish. Those who send it have no or little responsibility. I have told the Direct Marketing Association that I want to make it much easier for those who do not want to receive such material to deactivate it by phone, e-mail or letter so that they receive none thereafter, making what is known in the business as suppression files. The information is not readily available to the ordinary person. I do not know how to stop the flow, and I do not suppose that other people do. Nevertheless, I am keen to do so—it would be a real form of waste minimisation—and to ensure that, where the mail continues, the originators take responsibility for the collection and funding of the recyclable material. That does not happen now.

Bill Wiggin: I agree with the Minister about junk mail. Many of my constituents have written to me about it. I was pleased to see that the envelopes in which we receive notes are being recycled. Can the Minister assure us about the status of political leaflets? People feel strongly about being leafleted, but the democratic process relies on freedom of information.

Michael Meacher: That is, indeed, one of the points that we are considering. I agree; political parties should not be able to use their power in this place, and their influence on Government, simply to exclude themselves from a process that applies to others. However, I accept that there is a difference between seeking votes on reasonable grounds and trying to press financial facilities on people who have not solicited them. The case must be made; it is not automatic.
 I return to the incineration tax mentioned in new clauses 5 and 12. The strategy unit considered it in detail. It concluded that the case was not made, and that even significant increases in landfill tax were unlikely to make incineration the cheapest option for the disposal of waste. We should not forget that incineration deals with 9 per cent. of municipal waste, whereas landfill takes 78 to 80 per cent. The strategy unit recommended only that the case for an incineration tax should be kept under review and that a decision should be made on the basis of a thorough examination of the health and social impacts of incineration and other forms of waste management. That study is in hand and it will inform the Government's decision. 
 I turn to the question of the moratorium. New clause 32 requires the introduction of a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until each responsible local authority can provide for the separation and recycling of domestic waste and all local waste management strategies conform to standardised national waste management criteria. We have already had considerable discussion about that. A central argument in that regard is that there are already in place criteria that require any application for incineration not to crowd out recycling potential. 
 Secondly, I can give the assurance that we take the potential health and environmental implications of all waste management options seriously. Many of the United Kingdom's older incinerators have been shut down because they could not comply with EU directive 89/429, which came into operation in 
 October 1996, on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste incineration plants. The new standard was that dioxins, which are what people, understandably, worry most about coming out of the stack, should not exceed 1 nanogram per cubic metre. That is one part per billion; an extremely tiny fraction. It is to be tightened tenfold in the new waste incineration directive—the new target is 0.1 nanogram per cubic metre, one part in 10 billion. That will not reassure everybody, and most of the public are unaware of the new measures. However, they have altered the situation with regard to emissions from incinerators. As a result, dioxin emissions from today's incinerators are already down more than 200-fold from five years ago. They are less than 0.5 per cent. of what they were just five years ago. The Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, which partly transpose the directive, came into force just after Christmas. 
 The other point to which I want to refer concerns new clause 32, which states: 
''The Secretary of State shall introduce a moratorium on the building of new municipal waste incinerators until . . .
(c) the Government has introduced fiscal measures which act as a disincentive to incineration and encourage reuse and recycling.''
 Again, that is exactly what we have done. I am not just agreeing with it as a point of principle; it is precisely what the Government have done. 
 Finally, it may remain a point of division but, while I do not believe that there will be a significant increase in incineration, it is too rigid and going too far to say that there should be no new incineration in any case. Perhaps the criteria should be tightened. I was not personally involved in the justification for the three larger incinerators to which I referred, and if there were any suggestion that the national criteria were not properly taken into account, I would be seriously concerned, but that is different from saying, no, never, not in any circumstances. I take a different view.

Norman Baker: The Minister keeps making the point, so I hope that he understands why I intervene. Our position is not that of Jacques Chirac, which is no, never. Our new clause 5 would introduce a moratorium
''until a review is completed of the health and environmental impacts of incineration and other thermal treatments of waste'',
 as well as requiring taxation changes and so on. We are suggesting not a ban, but a moratorium, which is different.

Michael Meacher: I accept that, but we shall probably have the report on the health and social implications of all waste management options, including incineration, by the end of the year and we shall make a decision on that. To the Government's mind, that is a prelude to examining whether there should be an incineration tax. If significant health issues arise from incineration, the Government would have to take action not only on new applications but on existing incinerators. However, I insist that the health implications of incinerators have been so tightened that they are not now the major cause of dioxin
 emissions. The major causes are much more proliferated in agricultural fires, domestic fires and any form of combustion that is not handled properly. I am not being facetious, but it is often said that Guy Fawkes night produces a lot more dioxin emissions than incinerators.

Ashok Kumar: May I help my right hon. Friend? I am a strong champion of incineration, as a former chemical engineer, and know that technology has moved to a different level. I think that that is what my right hon. Friend is saying. Dioxin emissions are less than 1 per cent. from incinerators. The steel industry emits 16 per cent. and my right hon. Friend made a point about bonfire night, which produces far greater dioxin emissions. He has got the right level, but fear has been created in the community. We should not make judgments on dioxin emissions alone.

Michael Meacher: Those figures are correct and I have seen similar figures. Other industries, such as iron and steel and other heavy manufacturing, still generate considerably more dioxins and we are anxious to reduce them. Incinerators are not now the main cause of the generation of dioxins, which they were before 1996.
 New clauses 9 to 12 would also require each area of the UK to set up regulations requiring existing incinerators to monitor dioxin emissions continuously. That interests me. Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure dioxin levels in that way. The technology is not yet proven to a level at which we can be confident of its scientific value. However, the Environment Agency is working on measuring dioxin levels, and hopes that something can be introduced. In the meantime, the waste incineration directive already requires that the dioxin levels of municipal waste incinerators are measured at least twice a year, and at least every three months during the first 12 months of operation. Those figures are reported to the Environment Agency. 
 I apologise for the length of my remarks, but the debate is central to our proceedings. As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) said—for reasons that we understand, he cannot be here today—it would not be prudent totally to rule out all future incineration, however much one might seek to ensure that it was limited and used only strictly when appropriate. As he said, we should not rule it out. 
 I was going to raise a question about amendment No. 8, but unless anyone wishes to press me on it, I think that I have spoken for long enough. 
 Priority will continue to be given to recycling, reuse and recovery, as required by the rules of the planning process. The guidelines are clear; not only current recycling but its potential must not be crowded out. The long planning time is a significant deterrent, and public opinion remains strongly against it. I believe that those factors are sufficient to ensure that what the Committee wants to happen will largely be what does happen. 
 On that basis, I hope that the assurances that I have given, and the whole range of measures that the 
 Government have already put in place—I am sure that we will add to them—will meet the requirements of the Committee, and that hon. Members will agree that the new clauses are not necessary. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will withdraw the amendment.

Win Griffiths: Order. Before we proceed, if the Committee wishes to vote, we shall divide only on the amendment; the new clauses will be taken later, should the Committee wish to force them to a Division.

Bill Wiggin: This has been an interesting, informative and helpful debate, particularly so as my amendment sought only to add the word ''or''. I made a few notes during our wide-ranging debate. I thank all hon. Members for their helpful contributions. We have a great deal of wisdom and expertise in the Room.
 The first accusation is that the amendments and new clauses would gold-plate the European directive. I do not believe that that is so. All the amendments were constructive and would have helped achieve what the Government seek. However, there are different levels of expertise. The hon. Member for Stafford gave us some helpful information on the different types of incinerating machine being manufactured in his constituency that are now being used to recycle miscanthus and other types of wood pulp. My experience is that that is the right way forward. 
 I kept rather quiet because I am not as anti-incineration as others if energy can be recovered from the process. However, the debate focused not on the positive aspects of incineration but on the fact that we should use levels in the waste hierarchy first. Therefore, it was positive and welcome that both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle—perhaps it was because of his youth, although, without wishing to be catty, I am in fact younger than him—and the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the ambition that we perhaps all share to make the future greener and less polluted. 
 I agree that the Budget was a missed opportunity to introduce the financial and fiscal measures that will encourage the recycling and reuse of waste, as well as its reduction in the first place. That was a great shame, but the Minister no doubt will go from here and lobby the Chancellor to target such things with his next opportunity. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a good point when he urged the Government to consider new clause 32. He said: 
''I have given considerable thought to it over a long period. It essentially says that a local authority, either by itself or corporately with other stakeholders, can use incineration but only after it has jumped through a series of hoops . . . wherever it is economically viable to do so, it must recycle.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 April 2003; c. 170.]
 That has been the gist of the debate. No one really has spoken out against incineration per se—they have tried to pressure the Minister to move up the hierarchy so that we recycle and reuse first. New clause 29, which I have tabled and which comes in the next group of amendments, seeks to do exactly that. The intention is not to prevent incineration, but to ensure that it is the choice before landfill rather than the first choice.

Michael Meacher: I agree.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister agrees; I am particularly pleased and I even wrote it down when he said that he did not disagree with what was written in the clause. The debate has been constructive and helpful; I just wish that it was more widespread, given that we have touched on the Budget and other matters. I was particularly pleased to hear about the cut in dioxins, although I take the point that dioxins are produced in different ways and that not all can be scrubbed—I think that that is the right term—through the chimney process, as they can through incineration.
 I have no problem with withdrawing my amendment. The word ''or'' would have emphasised the hierarchy, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in
clause 17, page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (4).

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 18. 
 Amendment No. 70, in 
clause 26, page 17, line 25, at end add— 
 '( ) Where a waste collection authority fails to fulfil its obligations, as directed by a waste disposal authority under section 57 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and as a result of the waste disposal authority is liable to a penalty under section 9, then the waste collection authority shall become liable to a penalty as defined in this section.'.
 Government amendment No. 20. 
 Government amendment No. 21. 
 Amendment No. 77, in 
clause 31, page 20, line 32, at end insert— 
 '( ) In section 52 (payments for recycling and disposal etc. of waste) after subsection (9) (a waste disposal authority shall be entitled to receive from a waste collection authority such sums as are needed to reimburse the waste disposal authority) there is inserted— 
 ''(9A) A waste collection authority shall have the right to appeal to the allocating authority against the sum requested in reimbursement from the waste disposal authority under subsection (9). 
 (9B) If any exercise of the power contained in subsection (9) by a waste disposal authority results in a financial loss to a waste collection authority through the requirement to alter a preexisting contract, that loss shall be payable in full by the waste disposal authority.''.'.
New clause 29 
 Sorting of municipal waste 
 'From 1st January 2010, waste disposal authorities shall not dispose of municipal waste by sending it to landfill, or by sending it to an incinerator, or by sending it to an energy recovery plant if that municipal waste has not been sorted in order to remove recyclable waste.'.

Michael Meacher: I apologise to you, Mr. Griffiths, and to the Committee if my remarks are lengthy. Having just spoken at considerable length, I shall try to minimise them as much as I can, but this is another important group of amendments.

Win Griffiths: Speech minimisation as well as waste minimisation.

Michael Meacher: Speech minimisation is something that Chairs and Speakers in the House like to encourage, with the threat of incineration if it does not work.
 As well as speaking to the Government's amendments, I shall give our views on amendment No. 70 and new clause 29, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and the hon. Member for Leominster respectively. 
 The changes are not straightforward and I shall try to explain them clearly. Amendment No. 61 would remove subsection (4), which was inserted in the other place. Our reason is that the provision does not make it clear who will produce the strategy or whether it will be a single or joint-authority strategy. However, we have given considerable thought to joint municipal waste strategies in considering our response to the strategy unit report and in the light of the provision inserted in the Bill in another place and the comments made by all parties on Second Reading and last week in Committee. 
 There is a strong feeling that waste management in two-tier areas can be a problem and that encouraging authorities in such areas to plan together strategically is part of the solution. It can help them to set the framework for a partnership approach to achieving the landfill directive obligations and statutory waste targets. 
 In reaching a decision, we were mindful of the fact that the local authority policy agenda had moved on since ''Waste Strategy 2000'' and that what we do should be framed within the freedoms and flexibilities agenda—the so-called modernisation agenda that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister particularly has been promoting. In particular, we are mindful of the need to reduce burdens on authorities wherever possible and to avoid over-prescription if we place obligations on them. Taking all of that into account, we concluded that taking a blanket approach and requiring strategies from all authorities, in all circumstances, was not compatible with local authority freedom and flexibility. Therefore, we are taking a more targeted approach by requiring compulsory strategies only in two-tier authorities and by exempting excellent authorities in the two-tier structure. 
 I am glad to say that some of the authorities in those areas are already working well together. Therefore, we intend to exempt those authorities that can show that they are on target to meet their statutory requirements. All other authorities will be required to participate in drawing up a joint strategy for the area of the waste disposal authority. We shall table amendments on Report for that.

Bill Wiggin: I should like the Minister to clarify a matter. In discussing the last series of amendments, he mentioned the Government's statutory requirement for local authorities to reuse and recycle before they incinerated and said that that would have to fit in with their plan. I cannot quote him exactly, but I believe that that was the gist of it. Will this provision affect the
 plan? I may have misunderstood the Minister's comments.

Michael Meacher: Authorities certainly will be held to account on meeting the 2003–04 doubling target and the 2005–06 trebling target. In order to determine whether they were on target, I wrote letters to 140 local authorities last August and have now written to more than 100 who are still worryingly off track or who have not yet convinced me that they are sufficiently on track that I should not be concerned about them. I have written and asked them to provide evidence that they will be able to meet the target and will continue to monitor that.
 The clause provides a formal legislative requirement to participate in drawing up a joint strategy if there is evidence that an authority is not on track. We have targeted a key area, rather than take a blanket approach. That is the only difference.

Norman Baker: I understand the Minister's logic, in that he wishes to target a key area. That is a sensible approach. Can he clarify when the requirement will kick in? Clearly, he wants failing authorities—to use a shorthand version—to draw up a plan to get back on track, and he wants to exempt successful authorities. Will the requirement apply only if a target year has been missed, or will it kick in if they have failed to complete the expected progress in a non-target year?

Michael Meacher: I was referring to the meeting of statutory, or mandatory, performance standards—the best value performance indicators 82(a) and (b), which are about local authority recycling performance. Target and non-target years, which relate to meeting the landfill directive targets, are a somewhat different matter. In a sense, the two issues are related in that one must find alternatives if one does not send material to landfill. Recycling is the obvious alternative, which is why I am so anxious to push it up the hierarchy as fast as I can. However, the two processes are separate; they not identical.
 To ensure that local authority recycling targets are met, the Government, through me, are telling authorities that we are concerned and we want to see action in the form of a plan that shows how they will meet the target. The provision before us, however, if it is agreed by Parliament, and if both Houses agree to the amendment that I shall table on Report, will become part of the Bill. It will be mandatory only when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which I imagine will be this year. 
 I turn now to the rest of the group of amendments. Amendment No. 18 removes clause 17(5), which was inserted in the other place. It is unnecessary to make directions in relation to a strategy, because clause 31 already provides for a direction-making power. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, which are in my name, will go further towards ensuring that that power works as intended. 
 Clause 31 amends sections 48 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enable a disposal authority to direct a collection authority to deliver waste separated. The power may be exercised 
 only where a disposal authority considers that necessary to meet its obligations under any enactment. A collection authority has a duty to comply with such directions. 
 The additional Government amendments regulate further the operation of the power to give directions. Our amendments are quite complicated, but they have a simple goal: to encourage county and district councils, in their respective guises as waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities, to work together in a way that assists the disposal authority in meeting its obligations under the landfill allowance scheme and its statutory recycling targets. 
 Amendment No. 20 adds new subsections (4B) to (4D) to section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They require a waste disposal authority to consult the waste collection authorities in its area before giving directions, to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State, and to notify collection authorities of its reasons for requiring them to deliver waste separated. The guidance will encourage disposal authorities to reach an agreement with collection authorities without issuing formal directions, which is clearly preferable. 
 Amendment No. 21 makes provision regarding the costs of delivering waste separated. It inserts proposed new clause 52A into the 1990 Act and requires waste disposal authorities to pay waste collection authorities such amounts as are needed to ensure that collection authorities are not financially worse off as a result of complying with a direction to deliver waste separated. The proposed new clause permits the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the amounts to be paid are to be determined. Any dispute would be referred to arbitration. Provision is made for the collection authority to supply the disposal authority with the information that it needs to determine the amount to be paid. 
 In view of those direction-making powers, the provision in clause 17(5), which was inserted in another place, is unnecessary. Amendment No. 18 would remove it. A requirement to have joint strategies where necessary, coupled with a power of direction for waste disposal authorities to require waste to be delivered separated, would go a long way towards providing a proper balance between the two tiers of waste authority and encouraging them to work together. Amendment No. 70 transfers liability for a financial penalty in certain circumstances from a waste disposal authority to a waste collection authority. [Interruption.] We are all pleased to see the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings returning. He missed a fascinating debate, but he will be able to read it in Hansard. 
 I am confused by the reference in the amendment to section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I assume that it is intended to be a reference to section 48, as amended by the Bill, which would impose a duty on a waste collection authority to comply with directions from a waste disposal authority under section 51. The amendment would then provide that if a collection authority failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of a direction from a disposal authority and, as a result, the disposal authority 
 became liable to a penalty, that liability would fall on the collection authority. As I explained last week, we do not think that one authority having the power to transfer its liability to another is conducive to harmonious working relations. Nor do we want there to be a route through which a transgressing disposal authority can seek to deny culpability; our overall purpose is to encourage joint working. 
 Amendment No. 77 appears to be aimed at regulating the relationship between waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities in the context of collection and disposal of commercial and industrial waste. I am a little puzzled as to the purpose of the amendment. It would add to section 52(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—which provides for a disposal authority to be reimbursed the reasonable costs of disposing of industrial and commercial waste collected by a collection authority—a provision for appeal. I assume that it should refer to the Secretary of State, as the term ''allocating authority'' does not exist outside the Bill. Such an appeal is unnecessary as there is already a provision for disputes to be determined by arbitration in section 52(11) of the 1990 Act. I am not sure what is intended by the second part of the amendment. If the hon. Member for Lewes is aware of a specific problem in the operation of section 52(9), I invite him to tell us. 
 Finally, new clause 29 would prevent waste that had not been sorted to remove recyclable materials from being sent to any disposal operation, whether landfill, incineration or energy recovery. Although that is desirable, the amendment is too rigid, as it takes no account of facilities that are or may be in place, nor of possible emergency situations such as—however unlikely—a fire destroying a recycling facility. Recycling is being encouraged through other means, as we have heard. Waste authorities have to sort waste and recycle in order to meet their recycling and composting performance standards. Further, in order to meet the requirements of the Bill, disposal and collection authorities will need to work together in order to maximise recycling. As I explained, waste disposal authorities will have the power to direct waste collection authorities to deliver waste separated to facilitate recycling. For those reasons, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 70 and 77 and new clause 29. 
 The Government amendments to the power to make directions about the separation of waste provided for in clause 31 and the amendments that we shall propose on strategies on Report will achieve an appropriate balance between authorities. They will provide flexibility and encourage co-operation between the two tiers of authority, and I hope that the Committee will support them.

Norman Baker: I can be quite brief. I understand why the Minister approaches this group of amendments as he does, and replacing the House of Lords amendments with Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21 is sensible. I shall not dwell further on that, although we shall obviously consider the additions that the Minister intends to make on Report, to ensure that they perform the functions that he has set out and that they are adequately
 drafted. However, we have no disagreement about Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
 Amendment No. 77 may be faulty, but what we were seeking was not dissimilar to what the Government sought in their amendment No. 21. Our intention was to ensure that waste collection authorities could not be landed with huge bills because of the irresponsible and thoughtless activities by waste disposal authorities. To be fair, the Government have covered that adequately in their amendment No. 21. 
 The Minister believes—I share his view—that it is desirable that waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities should reach agreement without the necessity for directions to be issued by the waste disposal authority, thereby invoking a legal process. However, such directions may be issued more often than we would wish for the simple reason that waste collection authorities will want to ensure that they have adequate compensation. I judge that the legal process that the Minister sets out in the amendment is more likely to give a fair return to the waste collection authority than a gentleman's agreement. 
 If I were a member of a waste collection authority, and the county council requested us to change our behaviour in order to meet the council's requirements, I would want a proper legal agreement in order to protect our position; otherwise, costs could subsequently occur that had not hitherto been anticipated, and the waste collection authority would have no way of recouping them. The waste collection authority could protect its position by requiring a direction to be issued by the waste disposal authority, but that would not happen if there were only a gentleman's agreement. The Minister may have a view on that; it is a small point, but directions will be more common than he anticipates. 
 Lastly, I ask the Minister to consider proposed new subsection (9B) in amendment No. 77. In the situation that I have just described, I was seeking to ensure recognition of the possibility of a waste collection authority being out of pocket, not because of future actions that the waste disposal authority might require of it but because it might have entered into legally binding contracts with third parties. For instance, a direction from a waste disposal authority may require a contract to be broken into order that its directions are complied with. Under those circumstances, the waste collection authority could not be held responsible for the breaking of the contract, but a penalty may have to be paid. The Minister will understand the difference between a waste disposal authority requiring some future action that has a cost, and requiring a retrospective action that might have a cost, such as the signing of a contract. 
 I want to be sure that that point is covered by Government amendment No. 21. If waste collection authorities have to break contracts, will they be able to claim compensation from the waste disposal authority under the amendment? If they cannot claim compensation, the waste collection authority will be 
 out of pocket through no fault of its own. That would not be fair or desirable.

Bill Wiggin: I, too, shall keep my comments short. One of the problems with the Government amendments is deciding whether the noble Lords' wording is better or worse than that of the Government. I address my comments to new clause 29 because the strategy unit proposed something similar to it in ''Waste Not, Want Not.'' It suggested that a ban on disposing recyclable materials to landfill would be very helpful to the Bill. I do not want to recycle the arguments used when the Committee discussed incineration earlier, but it would be odd to pass up the opportunity to prevent municipal waste that has not been sorted from being sent to landfill. That, after all, is the Bill's purpose.
 The new clause is a neat way of supporting the Government's desire for a ban. It gives local authorities plenty of time to ban the dumping of recyclable products in landfill or the sending of them to be recovered by incineration or in another type of energy recovery plant. It is a rather good clause and one with which Friends of the Earth was very helpful; it also fits in with the waste strategy unit's recommendations. I found slightly bizarre the Minister's comments that he could not accept the new clause because a fire might damage the council's plant. I hope that Minister will sort out my difficulties with his opposition to this small, neat, helpful and rather compliant new clause.

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for the general support for the Government amendments. The hon. Member for Lewes argued that direction from the disposal authority to the collection authority may turn out to be more frequent than any of us want. He may be right, but that is a matter for conjecture. I cannot take the matter further, but it is our intention and strong wish that those relationships should be fostered voluntarily and through co-operation, with the least possible resort to the law and contractual requirements. Relationships inevitably sour in such circumstances. However, the hon. Gentleman may be right—that direction from one authority to another may be more frequent than we would like.
 If I understood the hon. Gentleman, he seemed to be asking whether a collection authority could be out of pocket if a disposal authority issued an instruction to it in a manner that required an existing contract to be changed. I do not expect that to happen. It is not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely. However, if it did happen, compensation would have to be paid to the contractual partner who had lost out. It is not our wish or intention that such an extreme measure should be taken. If it were, the financial implications would have to be considered beforehand. I repeat that if the disposal authority caused the collection authority to be liable for that compensatory repayment, it would have to cover the cost of any actions that needed to be taken. 
 The hon. Member for Lewes asked whether directions would always be given. I repeat that it is certainly hoped that authorities could reach agreement without the need for directions. For that reason, Government amendment No. 21 would permit a 
 disposal authority to make a payment to a collection authority even when directions were not given. 
 I do not demur from the general thrust of new clause 29, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster; I absolutely accept its main principle. Once again, it is a question of whether one can talk in absolutes. One can imagine emergency situations in which a legal requirement might prevent what clearly needed to be done, and Parliament should not put local bodies in that situation. 
 As I said, there is nothing wrong with the general thrust of the new clause, or its objectives and aspirations; it is just that, in our view, it is a bit too rigid. It takes no account of the facilities that are in place—or that might be put in place in future—or of emergency situations. I gave the example of a fire destroying a recycling facility. I do not wish to be niggardly or to quibble, and I think that such an event is extremely unlikely, but we in this House need to be careful that we do not use legislative power to prevent an appropriate local reaction when unusual circumstances occur, as we know they do from time to time. That is all that I am saying; it is not a general disagreement.

Bill Wiggin: It occurred to me while the Minister was speaking that the new clause is fairly rigid and, if such a crisis took place, it would prevent authorities from burying recyclable products. In a crisis of any sort, it would be possible for a local authority to put recyclable items in the ground, but the new clause would not allow it to leave them there indefinitely; it would have to come back later and recycle what it had put into landfill. I would not have a problem with that.
 Suppose the waste was a large amount of glass, and that it was simply dumped again. That goes against the principle of everything that we have been battling for over the past few sittings. It would not necessarily be wrong for the authority to put a lot of glass in a hole in the ground, dig it up again later and recycle it. That is the difference between parking rubbish, and landfilling and then forgetting about it.

Michael Meacher: I give the hon. Gentleman credit for ingenuity in trying to save his new clause. It would be slightly bizarre if the local authority should feel obliged—against its general wishes—to put material into landfill in an emergency, and then be required by legislation to dig it up and recycle it. That would be stretching the appropriateness of legislation. It might be that that is exactly what the local authority would do anyway. However, I am not sure that it would necessarily put the waste into the ground; the obvious thing to do would be to store the waste until a new recycling facility was available.
 We need to use compulsion in this case—although with considerable care—and should not force authorities into a situation that later turns out to be odd, inappropriate or even bizarre. That is why I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I still feel the need to resist his new clause.

John Hayes: Now that I have had time to gather my thoughts, given the Minister's general acceptance of the principle of the new clause tabled by my hon.
 Friend the Member for Leominster, and notwithstanding the squirrel aspect of the argument—the fact that local authorities would be likely to store the waste and then come back to it—I wonder whether the Minister would consider introducing an appropriate amendment on Report. That would be useful because the new clause strengthens the Bill in an important way, although the Minister may be right to say that it is too definitive. I invite him at least to consider tabling a better tailored version of the new clause on Report.

Michael Meacher: The structure of the functions set out in the Bill is perfectly adequate, and an amendment could have perverse consequences. The Government do not have to provide an alternative amendment if the new clause is not accepted, and the provision already adequately covers the situation that the hon. Member for Leominster has in mind.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Minister not envisage a situation in which a council, having fulfilled its targets, started to landfill recyclable products? The new clause would prevent local authorities from doing that. Provided that they fulfil all the targets set out in the Bill, they will not be required to exceed their good behaviour. That will prevent them from achieving even greater success in reducing landfill.

Michael Meacher: One needs to choose one's metaphors carefully when talking about landfill, but we are making a mountain out of a molehill. We all agree that we want to ensure the fastest and most extensive increase in recycling, reuse and recovery that we can. We are talking about the power of the disposal authority to give an instruction to the collection authority to ensure that waste is separated, the associated arrangements for ensuring that that happens and the power of direction to deal with the financial consequences.
 The new clause specifies that material should be sent not to landfill but to be recycled. That is a quasi-moratorium on landfill, similar to the moratorium on incineration that we were discussing earlier. Telling people that, under no circumstances, are they allowed to landfill is not the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem. I sympathise with the view that we should not straitjacket local authorities; they are responsible to their electorates and should be given a measure of discretion. 
 We seek to limit the parameters within which local authorities can exercise that discretion, but to instruct them that, in no circumstances whatsoever, can they landfill waste that could properly be recycled smacks of a command-and-control system. Perhaps we Members are changing places because I am not sure that I would have said that 20 years ago. The approach in the new clause is unnecessarily authoritarian. The hon. Gentleman will achieve the same result within the more flexible system that we propose, because a package of measures and incentives are embedded in the Bill.

John Hayes: I had not intended to speak on the matter, but an interesting debate has emerged. I do not want to make either a mountain or a molehill out of
 anything, but the balance between what we demand and what we expect is important.
 The Minister is right that local authorities will interpret and implement what we expect—the guidance that we offer and the parameters that the legislation establishes—in ways that are sensitive to local need. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster made a sound and solid point. I generously gave the Minister the opportunity—I do not know what you thought, Mr. Griffiths, but I thought that I was extremely generous—to say that he might make some amendments or bring back something slightly more tepid, perhaps by removing the definitive, which is what I think most concerned him. I did so because of the point that my hon. Friend made. That point requires a real answer and was about those local authorities that meet their requirements but then choose not to maintain practice in the spirit of the legislation. If we are setting parameters, issuing guidance or trying to change the culture, we should do so completely. 
 It is no good saying to local authorities, ''Yes, you can pursue good practice until you get to this point; after that it's up to you, mate. What you do after that is entirely a matter of choice. If you then want to go back to all the bad things you were doing before, that's fine by us.'' It would be very unfortunate indeed if the Government were sending that signal, although I do not suggest that they necessarily are. If, however, judgments are made solely by target rather than by something more aspirational, such as a change in culture, local authorities that have not bought into the culture but are obliged to accept the target will do as my hon. Friend says and go back to their old ways. 
 I do not think that the new clause is destructive; indeed, it is highly constructive. The question is whether we can improve the Bill and send a clear signal about acting outside the targets by effecting a cultural change that reaffirms good practice regardless of obligation. Obligation is important, but changing the culture is even more important and must be ongoing, above and beyond targets. I make this brief contribution to clarify that point, although I do not think that the Minister is yet convinced of that.

Gregory Barker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I shall give way briefly because I do not want to prolong things.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful argument and puts his finger right on the point, which is that we want to change the culture, not just achieve near-term, pedestrian and, possibly, insufficiently ambitious targets. What underlies the Government's reluctance to embrace the new clause is the fact that they know full well that if they insist that the procedures are met, the spotlight will immediately be thrown back on the fact that they are under-resourcing the capacity of authorities to go beyond the short-term targets. The Treasury simply will not wear that.

John Hayes: I am not sure that I would be quite as cynical as that. I think that the Minister wants a
 change in culture, and I do not want to intrude on any dispute or discussion that he and the Treasury may be having—we heard about some of them earlier in our proceedings, and they are part of the nature of Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is still dining out on the fact that the Minister described him as rugged in an earlier sitting, and he likes the slap of firm Government. However, the Minister is concerned that the proposals are perhaps, to use his words, too authoritarian—a little too dictatorial. We should get the right balance between setting objectives and allowing local authorities discretion, of which he rightly says they should have a measure, given that they are democratic bodies. I am a staunch defender of local democracy, but that balance must not be allowed to damage the cultural change to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle committed in his intervention. I want to ensure that that cultural change occurs, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and my hon. Friend—

Bill Wiggin: Leominster.

John Hayes: Yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster. To explain my lapse, I have been speaking about fishing all morning and so, in a manner of speaking, I am riding two horses today. The point made was a worthy one, and the Minister may wish to consider it at leisure. That is the spirit in which the amendment has been moved, and in which I have spoken to it. The amendment is not destructive—we are trying to be helpful.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but I do not think that he believes in his own phrase—the culture of change—with which I agree. Local authorities—even those that have good records up to now—are being given testing targets, taking them to more than 35 per cent., and some of them do not like that. If there is a change of culture, it would be bizarre to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman appears to be doing, that once they have met those targets, they would then slip back into their old ways. In the context of the amendment, that would mean not sorting out recyclates before material is sent to landfill. That seems to me an extraordinary scenario, and I do not believe that that should happen.
 Once a local authority has put in place the mechanisms, the plant and the facilities to meet those stretching targets, it will continue to do so. I do not believe that the moment it is off the leash, it will slip back into its bad old ways.

John Hayes: The Minister is stretching our credulity a little far. He knows as well as I do that there are local authorities that will grasp the challenge with relish. Many are already exemplars of good practice, and will certainly not only meet their targets but embrace the change of culture and implement it with enthusiasm.
 Other local authorities, however, will be more tardy. They will do what they have to do, but the change of culture that we all believe in will have to be stimulated a little more by Government action. Those authorities, if it is more convenient, and particularly if it is cheaper, will, once they have done what they are required to do, slip back into what is easy to do. 
 It is the mix of local authorities that is of concern. We believe that many authorities will do this properly, but that some might not. In the latter case, the Bill does not provide much opportunity for the Government to do anything about it, beyond setting targets. That could lead to unfortunate headlines in the local or national papers, both for the local authority concerned and for the Government.

Michael Meacher: There are provisions under ''Waste Strategy 2000'' that will influence a local authority. One of those provisions is the payment of the landfill tax, which will increase by £3 from next year, and could increase by significantly more in future years, if the Chancellor so chooses.
 The Bill also contains a precise requirement to ensure that the amount going to landfill is steadily reduced, which is a powerful physical driver. It must be reduced by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. and to meet those targets it will not be easy for a local authority to say, ''Right, we have met our recycling targets, so now 
 we are going to shove it back in landfill.'' They will not be able to do that. 
 I therefore do not think that we need to use a command and control system of saying ''thou shalt not'' under any circumstances. I do not wish to be heavy-handed about this: I am sympathetic to the clause. The issue relates to the degree of enforcement required. In the general area of waste I am keen on enforcement, but in this case that would be going too far. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 18, in 
clause 17, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Ainger.]
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.